Should people who choose to give blood get large tax breaks?

should everyone be forced to give blood to blood bank?

i want to see answers from people here who dont care about invasive scan, taking DNA when no crime or no arrest is done, and almost forcing people get vaccine H1N1 and flu

logic:

blood banks always low not enough people donate

why not require all citizen to give blood standard

it not different than taking dna

and blood actually help people and blood bank always full!

what is arguemtn against? fear of needle? reallY?

make people able to refuse, but require they pay higher taxes or something else to compensate, or if you want flu shots require blood donation

this can also help screen people for hiv and hepititas so they get treatment sooner and less people infected from risky sex and behavors

of course people who would be dangerous to take blood exempt

i want to see argument from some posters here who are nameless i wont say, but seem to support all government stuff and action plans

what do you think?

less people infected from risky sex and behaviors

Making it so that people would be forced to give blood would not lessen the amount of people infected from “risky sex and behaviors”. Because donating blood and being screened for HIV and such does not do a thing for “risky sex”.

Originally posted by blood18:

less people infected from risky sex and behaviors

Making it so that people would be forced to give blood would not lessen the amount of people infected from “risky sex and behaviors”. Because donating blood and being screened for HIV and such does not do a thing for “risky sex”.

wont it force detection sooner if at all in people who do risky sex?

they might now not get blood test our of fear

required to give blood would screen the hiv people sooner

how can you deny this?

Originally posted by AlienAdvisor:

Originally posted by blood18:

less people infected from risky sex and behaviors

Making it so that people would be forced to give blood would not lessen the amount of people infected from “risky sex and behaviors”. Because donating blood and being screened for HIV and such does not do a thing for “risky sex”.

wont it force detection sooner if at all in people who do risky sex?

they might now not get blood test our of fear

required to give blood would screen the hiv people sooner

how can you deny this?

Define “risky sex”

And you do know that you can develop HIV after having sex even if both partners are HIV negative right.

Why should you be forced to be stabbed by a little pointy thing? That is incredibly stupid.

Originally posted by sportsmaster19:

Why should you be forced to be stabbed by a little pointy thing? That is incredibly stupid.

for the benefit of others for the country, etc

we get stabbed right now for vaccine, this year 2 times..

it not stupid in that case huh?

Originally posted by blood18:

Originally posted by AlienAdvisor:

Originally posted by blood18:

less people infected from risky sex and behaviors

Making it so that people would be forced to give blood would not lessen the amount of people infected from “risky sex and behaviors”. Because donating blood and being screened for HIV and such does not do a thing for “risky sex”.

wont it force detection sooner if at all in people who do risky sex?

they might now not get blood test our of fear

required to give blood would screen the hiv people sooner

how can you deny this?

Define “risky sex”

And you do know that you can develop HIV after having sex even if both partners are HIV negative right.

like homosexual sex and sex with no limits, not commited people

Originally posted by AlienAdvisor:

Originally posted by sportsmaster19:

Why should you be forced to be stabbed by a little pointy thing? That is incredibly stupid.

for the benefit of others for the country, etc

we get stabbed right now for vaccine, this year 2 times..

it not stupid in that case huh?

So you inject yourself with H1N1 to prevent yourself from getting H1N1?

homosexual sex and sex with no limits, not commited people

Heterosexual sex can be just as “risky” as homosexual sex same with both committed and non-committed people.

Originally posted by sportsmaster19:

Originally posted by AlienAdvisor:

Originally posted by sportsmaster19:

Why should you be forced to be stabbed by a little pointy thing? That is incredibly stupid.

for the benefit of others for the country, etc

we get stabbed right now for vaccine, this year 2 times..

it not stupid in that case huh?

So you inject yourself with H1N1 to prevent yourself from getting H1N1?

yes, but deactivated or weaken version

why so opposed to give blood?

what if way to take without needle is found, like with forced reveresd air?

Originally posted by blood18:

homosexual sex and sex with no limits, not commited people

Heterosexual sex can be just as “risky” as homosexual sex same with both committed and non-committed people.

but straight people have more option than gay men during sex, you know? ;)

straight people have more option than gay men during sex

That makes it less “risky” how?

You do know that heterosexual couples can get HIV as well and it is not just a disease that homosexuals get.

yes now, but gay homosexual men spread it from chimps in africa i was told

We you were told wrongly. That is so completely and utterly false. I don’t have words to express how wrong that is.

Blood18’s username is ironic.

Had to point it out.

On topic: Yes.

Originally posted by zamininc:

Blood18’s username is ironic.

Had to point it out.

Actually I just now noticed that haha

No. Some people might have diesaese(cant spell) and not know it, thus passing it on

I have a dreadful phobia of needles! Seriously, I will get extremely violent if they come near me.

this can also help screen people for hiv and hepititas so they get treatment sooner and less people infected from risky sex and behavors

How about targeting risky sexual behaviors with education since that is your real concern?

yes now, but gay homosexual men spread it from chimps in africa i was told

There are a few theories, none of which involve gay people.

No,

If you donate blood, you suffer adverse effects – you temporarily have a pint or so less blood in your body than you should have, and thats bad. Not seriously dangerous, but it’s bad.

It’s different to DNA sampling, because that’s just information. Can you suggest any way in which a DNA sample harms the person it’s taken from?

As for flu vaccines, that’s potentially saving the life of the person receiving the jab, as well as saving others by preventing it from spreading as quickly.

Back on topic. This is effectively the LD resolution for this month, and I’ve got some solid arguments against any kind of compulsion for invading one’s right to their own body.

First off, the problem with compulsion is that it robs individuals of their right to choose. The mantra goes something like “Why is life valuable if I don’t have rights?” You’re being forced, or strongly persuaded to let someone stick a needle into your body and draw out your blood. They are actually stripping you of your right to privacy. That’s generally a bad thing. Yes, you may save a life, or you may provide higher quality of life for someone else, but if we are enacting a global system of compulsion, they too will have to go through that same process later. It robs people of their right to do with their own bodies as they see fit. It’s literally a physical intrusion on your body. It’s just bad news bears.

Also, what about the religious people that are against modern medicine? The menonites, the jehova’s witnesses, etc.? If my faith tells me that any kind of artificial breaking of the skin is immoral and will send me to hell, why should the government or any group be able to force me to do just that?

I’ll end with a quote. “But neither one person, nor any numer of persons, is warranted n saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not dow tih his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most interested in his own well-being: the interest which any other person, can have in it, is trifiling compared with that which he himself has.”
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

AlienAdvisor, you do not see the difference between getting flu shots to protect yourself over donating blood to save others?

Also, what about the religious people that are against modern medicine? The menonites, the jehova’s witnesses, etc.? If my faith tells me that any kind of artificial breaking of the skin is immoral and will send me to hell, why should the government or any group be able to force me to do just that?

Not that it is the main focus of the OP, but in cases of vaccinations there is a matter of a justifiable social obligation being enforced. If the community has low interaction with society like the Amish I can see an exception being made, but groups like Jehova’s Witnesses are very socially active so I think they lose that excuse.